Bharat Rakshak

I dont get this, when India does not try of getting stuff inhouse, we crib.

Now that its trying to do so. We crib again.

Sure it will take time, but MTA is critical in any case, and should be done well. In the interim some planes may be acquired.

This is exactly the T 90 vs Arjun debate (in 1998 timeframe) -- BOTH may be needed to be done.

This is exactly what HAL wants, work without responsibilities.

why shouldnt we fund for the incomplete AN-225?

Sankuji being a dilliwalla(?) you dont know HAL like we blr munna's do

http://www.61tcs.org/c-130_inventory.htm

if the above list is correct there should be atleast 100+ C-130 of various models lying in AMARC inventory. we could potentially round up around 40 of the best ones, get them refurbished, fitted with the latest engines, a austere analog cockpit, weather radar, CMDS and put them to work for another 15-20 yrs on delivery. they seem to last forever.

to round off the deal get 40 new build C-130J a mix of short- and long- per IAF requirements.

the ground infra and simulator training is now already getting place.

analog and digital cockpit training will be very different, so different sims will be needed

Isn't it too late to be starting the development process for a Manned cargo aircraft ? It is highly unlikely if MTA is deployed before 2025 i.e if it is successful.

HAL/DRDO/NAL should instead focus(financially and technically) on unmanned vehicles including those meant for hauling cargo.

whatever be the std of the older C130 cockpits, its unlikely to be any worse than the AN32 and IL76 cockpits. should be easy transition for our transport pilots.

we dont need another project dragging on until 2025 as HAL need to focus on key projects like 12t helicopter and AMCA.

Don't we need NAL/ADA or other agencies to be a part of the deisgn phase? The IJT is already suffering under HAL's leadership. HAL just needs to be the production agency. The design houses need to be separated from HAL under their own umbrella. They are the ones who should be signing the main agreement along with IAF and HAL as partners.

On the contrary this should be a competition open to the private sector as well as NAL/DRDO --a level playing field.

Am in agreement with those pushing for a C-27/Embraer/refurbished C-130 option. The C-130 option is analogous to buying used Toyota Corollas for a taxi fleet: you really can't go wrong. However operating costs could be an issue.

HAL signing it is a sure sign where things are headed. they will aim to license make it , service it and build a few spare parts for guaranteed jobs and revenue.
ADA/NAL come in the picture only when some original design is to be produced.

You are not saying anything contrary to what I have said . I did not say anything about participation. I am fully confident that India can develop such an aircraft , with or without Russia's cooperation.

My question is " Is it not better to allocate resources to projects like UCAVs/Cargo UAVs/AMCA etc ".

What is the point of developing a poor man's C-130 by 2025(if there are no delays) ? Instead if we are able to deploy a cargo UAV by 2030 , now that would be a paradigm shift. That would be something different , a Trail Blazer as some would say.Just like C-130 was in 1950's.

By the way has Indian Airforce or Army even shown any interest in such a product ? By interest I mean serious interest . Has someone asked them what they require in 2020's -2030's ? If not , then I can say this safely that even after successful development of such a product it probably will not be inducted in the forces.

the pvt sector alone is in a position (by hiring consultants and sourcing technology) to develop something like a PC-21 or IJT Sitara at this point and they will need some handholding and access to our Govt test facilities , infra and manpower also. they cant be expected to jump from nothing to a c-130 sized bird having demanding hot n high specs!!
maybe in hindsight, a decade ago when the HPT32 was on its last legs and Sitara was being considered would have been good to involve them and bring them up to speed by now. at present they can just supply components to spec not design and test it themselves.

the value add of a cargo UAV is unclear to me. for Khan in the congo or kandahar areas in isolated firebases with no access to big mac and XL sodas , who want to avoid truck routes (IEDs) and fly in cargo 24x7 with least risk, the idea of fix wing or rotary UAV makes sense. for us, I dont see why we need it. we do need UAVs for strike and recon.

instead of the MTA, why not a plane that can replace the IL76 / C130 eventually , turbofan powered, a kind of mini C17 if you will. that would have value decades into the future as our needs and ranges grow. smaller MTA types will always be available cheaply with Embraer getting into that segment. its the higher end that is costly and has few choices left.

I think there is more value in low-mid segment than the large ones. You only need 20-40 large types, where as you need a good 100-200 mid types. So I think MTA in the 20 ton range is good. I do think that we do need to plan for a MTA-ER type for MMRA/AEW type stuff.

>> 20-40 large types

if we want to dominate the IOR with a presence from madagascar to indo-china sea you know thats not enough. 75-100 will be needed.
but if the MTA design has scope for upscaling like the C130J was made longer by 20feet maybe its ok to start at the 20t mark. fixed underwing tanks C130J style would be good too.

Yeah, that will work as well and keep things simple. Only problem is Under wing tanks may take space where brahmos may go. So if there is a way to add both brahmos and 6000 liters under each wing, that be great. One can always increase and do a Large platform later. For now this *may* give us good grounding. Hopefully we get the LEAP-1A/1B engines to power these versus the russian engines for our needs. Better range, fuel efficiency and higher uptimes.

Sorry for being unclear; I meant there should be an open competition for unmanned transport vehicles as well.

Do you think we would see our C-130s doing this.... on an Indian Carrier. I am not sure if this has been posted before.. but this is crazy. Is
this for real
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5AI3YSV3M

I think our C-130J's are too valuable for us and mainly we don't have the expertise and experience in recovering and launching aircraft using STOBAR system yet.Even if we do i think it is too risky.

our carriers are too small

I wonder why no one thought about just landing platform runways, that can be attached/towed to any A/C or large ship. That way, we could have extended runway platforms, land and take off.

we could have them anchored at strategic places on the ocean.. and have dockable arrangements.

they tend to break up under anything other than completely flat seas

Also,

Suppose you somehow did make one of them ...

1. how do you make them turn with you if you have to turn hard?
2. How do you make them slow down at the same rate as you are slowing down?
3. How do you protect them?
4. Now you have a runway. How do you store the planes? How do you store the planes, cargo, fuel and ammunition? If you store it in the mother ship, how do transport it to the runway?

India is interested in purchasing more C-17s apart from the 10 on firm order from the US as per Dennis Muilenberg of Boeing. The number could be 6 to 8 additional C-17s.

link

just throwing out the possibilities:

1. we should not have to do any hard turns with it. the construction itself should be dismantleable.. just like bridge laying concept [blocks].

2. let us assume there are reverse thrusters /slam down drags for each block.

3. only way I can think is dis-assemble to increase protection [create more block targets, thus reduce damage].

4. special design is needed to lift up/down the planes from A/C heights or connecting block that has within limit inclinations. Cargo the same way.. may be a cargo block could be added, or detached. control room blocks, etc.

?
[too much hollywood here?]

1. A slow moving A/C is a horrible idea. In practice, they need to very agile for their size.


The rest will be a lot of gimmicry ... it will no longer stay a simple light thing being dragged by the A/C carrier at all times. It will be almost as heavy as the A/C if not more with lots of stabilizers, synchronizers, own propulsion system etc. Also remember that this runway will always be in the wake of the aircraft carrier and still stay (almost) flat. And, all this for what? They rather have 2 Chinooks or a Mi-26!

But you can sell this idea to Steven Speilberg for Avatar 2

you are right.. that avatar would be something on the screen!

for transport aircrafts to land on A/Cs, we would need bigger ones, and especially driven by enhanced and powerful nuke power. it would be a giant venture.

Doolittle raid pangs?! Some recent reports indicate that the MTA is progressing well.At least 200 to be built,100 for Russia,40+ for us an the rest for export.It should be a good platform for specialised roles too,like AEW,ASW/MRP,etc.

Not quite true. If that plane could repeatedly land and take off from the Forrestal in under 600 ft, it can land on the Viraat. Instead, our stretched C-130J-30s may be too big but who knows--they have been known to land in as little as 300 feet without a carrier head wind. Interesting that these were unarrested landings and unassisted take offs--ie. no arrester hooks or catapult.

Can we use the Kaveri engine for MTA, I mean same design enlarged?

it is like saying son's pant can be worn by dad - same deisgn enlarged!

How much load/fuel did the 130 have during these tests?
this is not to take away the fact that what we saw was a visual treat, but how practical was it??

The recent Force Magazine has a quote from AOC of Chandigarh AFB (who himself is veteran TpT Pilot) that C-17 are not coming air-maintenance roles - they have more strategic role to play. 16-18 C-17 in IAF service should allow IA to move at least a brigade worth of troops over large distance. The ideal expeditionary/rapid reaction force structure (for starters) proposed in various think tank circles is 1 x Amphibious bde+1 x Para Bde+1 x Air Mobile Bde - while the amphibious bde is in place in Trivandrum we've been hamstrung in terms of airlift for an air-mobile bde. C-17 should help us address this requirement.

These pictures don't have any aircraft on deck. I don't think it's possible to perform such maneuvers during normal operations without some equipment or men taking a dip.

^^^Jamwal, those pics are from the "shakedown" routine of the carrier....this is done after the carrier is built and before it is handed down to the Navy. There is a dedicated QC team of third-party contractors and Navy personnel which puts the carrier through its paces...happens for all other ships as well. Saw this in a Discovery Channel program on Super Carrier.

The biggest trouble with the C-130 on an Indian carrier is - where to do you park the damn thing? It'll take up enough space for five fighters. And if its land based coming in just to touch down on a carrier, it defeats the purpose of having a transport aircraft on board (as opposed to employing rotor wing aircraft).


Given the space constraints on the Indian carriers, this is what we need (and it seems are) looking at -


V-22s folded and parked on the USS Bataan





And interestingly you could park one on a destroyer or frigate's helipad, though it'll probably not fit in the hangar(?).



The biggest negative to be looked into may in fact be the damage to flight decks from the engine exhaust. Aside from that, the Navy ought to be making a beeline for it.

osprey has too many operational complexities from the very nature its design and use. of course, we can consider it if their many defects are corrected, and usability increased. multiple redundancy can't help if only one blade goes bad on either side, and increasing the risk twice fold, by the nature of the design itself.

Let's stay as far away from Osprey as possible. It is barely airworthy, especially during hover, VTO, VTL. It has killed many test pilots, techs and engineers during development and still continues to kill people occasionally after induction (directly due to the unreliability of its specialized operational design that makes it a unique aircraft). It would be a great aircraft if it is ever perfected and becomes safe and reliable.